↓ Skip to main content

A Novel Method for Volumetric MRI Response Assessment of Enhancing Brain Tumors

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Novel Method for Volumetric MRI Response Assessment of Enhancing Brain Tumors
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0016031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles W. Kanaly, Dale Ding, Ankit I. Mehta, Anthony F. Waller, Ian Crocker, Annick Desjardins, David A. Reardon, Allan H. Friedman, Darell D. Bigner, John H. Sampson

Abstract

Current radiographic response criteria for brain tumors have difficulty describing changes surrounding postoperative resection cavities. Volumetric techniques may offer improved assessment, however usually are time-consuming, subjective and require expert opinion and specialized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences. We describe the application of a novel volumetric software algorithm that is nearly fully automated and uses standard T1 pre- and post-contrast MRI sequences. T1-weighted pre- and post-contrast images are automatically fused and normalized. The tumor region of interest is grossly outlined by the user. An atlas of the nasal mucosa is automatically detected and used to normalize levels of enhancement. The volume of enhancing tumor is then automatically calculated. We tested the ability of our method to calculate enhancing tumor volume with resection cavity collapse and when the enhancing tumor is obscured by subacute blood in a resection cavity. To determine variability in results, we compared narrowly-defined tumor regions with tumor regions that include adjacent meningeal enhancement and also compared different contrast enhancement threshold levels used for the automatic calculation of enhancing tumor volume. Our method quantified enhancing tumor volume despite resection cavity collapse. It detected tumor volume increase in the midst of blood products that incorrectly caused decreased measurements by other techniques. Similar trends in volume changes across scans were seen with inclusion or exclusion of meningeal enhancement and despite different automated thresholds for tissue enhancement. Our approach appears to overcome many of the challenges with response assessment of enhancing brain tumors and warrants further examination and validation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 44 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 37%
Engineering 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Computer Science 2 4%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,991,877
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#25,595
of 194,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,823
of 182,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#204
of 1,277 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 182,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,277 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.